| Literature DB >> 31731623 |
Yao Song1, Zhenzhen Qin2, Tao Kang3, Yang Jin4.
Abstract
Considering China is facing a precipitous decline in its population, there is an emerging trend of developing baby robots to encourage people's willingness to become "parents". Based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior and the theory of uncanny valley, this study empirically investigated whether a baby robot could perform as a prominent antecedent of fertility intention in China, and how this relates to its visual appearance. Consistent with prior research, the current study used a between-subjects design to show (1) a baby robot could significantly improve people's fertility attitude through temporal visual stimulation; (2) fertility attitude, subjective norms from peers, and perceived behavioral control of finance could significantly contribute to fertility intention. Theoretical contributions and implications are discussed in this study.Entities:
Keywords: China; fertility intention; perceived behavioral control; social robot; subjective norms
Year: 2019 PMID: 31731623 PMCID: PMC6956042 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare7040147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1The theoretical model of the current study.
The measurement items and relevant definitions.
| Measure | Definition | Measure Items |
|---|---|---|
| Fertility Attitude | It refers to an individual’s evaluation of the extent to which one is in favor or not of fertility behavior. | I would consider the bond between husband and wife when deciding to have a child. |
| Subjective Norms | It refers to social pressure one feels while deciding whether to implement certain behaviors. | I would consider the opinions of my relatives when deciding to have a child. |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | It refers to the extent of individual control which one perceives that he/she has of his/her fertility behavior. | I feel I have the energy to handle taking care of a child. |
| Fertility Intention | It is defined as the imagination and longing of husband and wife for their own family | The difference between the ideal and actual number of children in the survey. |
Figure 2The baby robot stimuli utilized in this study.
Demographic characteristics of the sample.
| Attributes | Value | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 101 | 56.10% |
| Female | 79 | 43.90% | |
| Age | 20–24 | 14 | 7.78% |
| 25–29 | 55 | 30.56% | |
| 30–34 | 37 | 20.56% | |
| 35–40 | 37 | 20.56% | |
| 40– | 37 | 20.56% | |
| Education | High school or below | 30 | 16.67% |
| Undergraduate or above | 150 | 83.33% | |
| Marital | Married | 174 | 96.67% |
| Divorced, separated or widowed | 6 | 3.33% |
Distribution of the difference between the ideal and actual number of children.
| Ideal Number | Actual Number | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | One | Two | Three | Total | |
| None | 34 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 36 |
| One | 22 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 48 |
| Two | 20 | 15 | 31 | 4 | 70 |
| Three | 6 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 26 |
| Total | 82 | 43 | 43 | 12 | 180 |
Figure 3The experimental procedure in this study.
The mean of different variables and their correlations.
| Construct | Mean | SD | FA | SF | SP | BF | BE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parenting Attitude (PA) | 6.41 | 2.36 | 1 | ||||
| Subjective Norm-Family (SF) | 4.52 | 2.49 | 0.326 *** | 1 | |||
| Subjective Norm-Peers (SP) | 4.32 | 2.51 | 0.237 *** | 0.792 *** | 1 | ||
| Behavioral Control-Finance (BF) | 6.59 | 2.04 | 0.542 *** | 0.079 | 0.045 | 1 | |
| Behavioral Control-Energy (BE) | 6.36 | 2.06 | 0.445 *** | 0.219 *** | 0.201 *** | 0.479 *** | 1 |
Note: *** p < 0.01.
Figure 4The relationship between fertility attitude under different stimuli.
The mean, SD, F value, P value of different variables and their ANOVA.
| Constructs | No.1 Robot Mean (SD) | No.2 Robot Mean (SD) | No.3 Robot Mean (SD) | No.4 Robot Mean (SD) | No.5 Robot Mean (SD) | No.6 Robot Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fertility Attitude | 6.80 (2.06) | 6.83 (2.55) | 4.90 (2.92) | 5.70 (2.26) | 7.03 (1.77) | 7.17 (1.64) | 4.86 | |
| Subjective Norm-Family (SF) | 4.17 (2.30) | 4.02 (2.68) | 4.41 (2.86) | 4.77 (2.43) | 4.89 (2.26) | 4.90 (2.35) | 0.73 | ns |
| Subjective Norm-Peers (SP) | 4.07 (2.41) | 4.2 (2.59) | 4.17 (2.83) | 4.43 (2.46) | 4.47 (2.37) | 4.61 (2.52) | 0.20 | ns |
| Behavioral Control-Finance (BF) | 6.50 (1.79) | 7.07 (1.96) | 6.02 (2.42) | 6.57 (2.14) | 6.33 (2.02) | 7.07 (1.76) | 1.27 | ns |
| Behavioral Control-Energy (BE) | 6.63 (1.69) | 6.93 (1.94) | 5.71 (2.49) | 5.90 (2.18) | 6.03 (1.99) | 6.97 (1.75) | 2.22 | ns |
Figure 5The relationship between subjective norms under different stimuli.
Figure 6The relationship between perceived behavioral control under different stimuli.
The logistic regression on fertility intention.
| Constructs | Sub-constructs | Coefficient | Odds Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.238 ** | 1.269 | |
|
| Norm-Family | 0.65 | 1.067 |
| Norm-Peers | −0.231 ** | 0.794 | |
|
| Control-Finance | 0.253 ** | 1.288 |
| Control-Energy | −0.196 * | 0.822 | |
|
| Gender | −0.610 * | 0.544 |
| Age | −0.060 *** | 0.942 | |
| Education | 0.631 | 1.880 |
Note: * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. Nagelkerke R-square: 0.215; Identification Accuracy: 68.9%.